Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >

Spread offense or nothing to see here?

Posted: 6/17/2014 7:40 AM

Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


“On the second day (Sunday) I was there, me and Chris Orr did a tour together, so I got to really have contact with him, which is pretty cool because we both committed at the same time,” Lee said.One of the things Lee said he was told is UW plans to start incorporating more spread formations in the offense. Although no timetable was given, it likely will coincide with the arrival of Kafentzis, a dual-threat quarterback.

“They talked about how they’re going to run more spread and spread the ball around,” Lee said. “They’re going to have up to four receivers on the field. They’re going to start doing that a lot more.


http://host.madison.com/sports...d38b9772fc.html
 
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 8:00 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


Old, really old news.

GA has stated the same since the first days of his arrival.

Just waiting for the pieces to be in place.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 8:23 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


His affinity for a dual-threat quarterback is well-known, but I do not recall hearing anything about going four wide.
 
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 8:45 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


This. The days of pound the rock 30 straight times are going to be long gone under Coach Anderson. He is moving to a spread offense. He is a spread guy. 
badgerpaw wrote: Old, really old news.

GA has stated the same since the first days of his arrival.

Just waiting for the pieces to be in place.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2014 8:55 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 



theunknownfan81 wrote: This. The days of pound the rock 30 straight times are going to be long gone under Coach Anderson. He is moving to a spread offense. He is a spread guy. 
badgerpaw wrote: Old, really old news.

GA has stated the same since the first days of his arrival.

Just waiting for the pieces to be in place.
Correct, except "moving to a spread offense" and "he's a spread guy" should be "incorporate spread formations and plays into the normal playbook in order to have more diverse offensive possibilities."  So actually not correct.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 8:57 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 



theunknownfan81 wrote: This. The days of pound the rock 30 straight times are going to be long gone under Coach Anderson. He is moving to a spread offense. He is a spread guy. 
badgerpaw wrote: Old, really old news.

GA has stated the same since the first days of his arrival.

Just waiting for the pieces to be in place.
You couldn't be more WRONG ukn81.  I didn't this that was possible...

Read the article where it says " more spread formations."   That is not the same as moving to the spread.

GA has also said many times that UW will continue to be a power running team.

Last edited 6/17/2014 8:58 AM by badgerpaw

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 9:01 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


Did the Badgers ever run the ball 30 straight times under BA or BB?

Seems like another lie by unknownfan81/allaboutrecruiting/shadowsofCR/menomo nie1/madisonbadger.

Last edited 6/17/2014 9:02 AM by Ph3431

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 9:26 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


"Before fans get the wrong impression, the Badgers are not about to abandon  their power running game. Lee compared it to the high school offense he is in  currently at Chaminade College Prep in West Hills, California. Lee said that offense is about 50-50 run-pass, including a power running  component. 'We run spread and we run the ball,” Lee said. “It’s kind of like what  Wisconsin is trying to do now — run spread (passing) and then run the ball. We  do have a power running game and really good running backs.'”

These ARE the Good Old Days.

Last edited 6/17/2014 9:26 AM by OlBadger

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 9:26 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


2nd half vs Michigan in 2010
Ph3431 wrote: Did the Badgers ever run the ball 30 straight times under BA or BB?

Seems like another lie by unknownfan81/allaboutrecruiting/shadowsofCR/menomo nie1/madisonbadger.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 9:42 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 



OlBadger wrote:

"Before fans get the wrong impression, the Badgers are not about to abandon  their power running game. Lee compared it to the high school offense he is in  currently at Chaminade College Prep in West Hills, California. Lee said that offense is about 50-50 run-pass, including a power running  component. 'We run spread and we run the ball,” Lee said. “It’s kind of like what  Wisconsin is trying to do now — run spread (passing) and then run the ball. We  do have a power running game and really good running backs.'”

Too much talk about passing being in a spread formation...they are not necessarily linked like the quote makes it sound like.  We will run out of spread formations and we'll pass out of pro sets.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 9:44 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


"2nd half vs Michigan in 2010"

Good catch. In the second half, after UM scored on their opening drive, UW took over with a 24-7 lead. On third and four, Tolzien hit Isaac Anderson for five yards and an apparent first down, but Anderson fumbled, and UM took over on the UW 38. Two plays later, it was 24-14. The Badgers didn't pass again, running the ball 31 straight times. Their final five drives:

 

8 rushes, TD

7 rushes, TD

5 rushes, FG

9 rushes, TD

2 kneel downs, end of game.

 

Four scores, 24 points, and not a single pass. Woody Hayes would have loved it!

 

These ARE the Good Old Days.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 9:52 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


I think we will actually see both more spread and still pound the football.

The one problem UW has had in the past is teams diving at the feet of the offensive line to clog up the running game and packing 8-9 guys in the box to stop the run. Going 3-4 wide forces the defense to put more d-back on the field and widen the defense to go cover our wide-outs, thus opening up the running lanes.

Also gives a mobile QB room to run and if he can throw the ball and our WR's can run it keeps the DB's further from the line of scrimmage.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2014 9:59 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


Remote possibility:  Run game falters (as passing has recently) and WR's and QB become very, very good.  A much more spread oriented O could develop, by necessity.  GA will go with what works with people he has.

----
Circus and Games!  Eat cake!  Let the games begin!  Put out that fire first.
------

 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 10:24 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


Okay, here are follow-up questions:

If GA is adding this dimension to the offense, is he adding the risk of trying to do too many things, ie. jack of all trades, master of none?  In addition, how difficult is it to assemble a roster that is built to excel at both Power O and Spread O?
 
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 10:44 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


You need an identity and then you recruit to it. That is what BB did so well for the running game. Coach Anderson is a spread guy and will continue to recruit to that focus. 

With 85 schollies you can't recruit for both systems and expect both to run at optimal level. He wants 16 scholly guys on the OL during the average season, so people can break the rest down and get a feel for it. 

I have no problem with him going to more spread since that is who he is and was hired knowing that. It just goes against what made Wisconsin Wisconsin. If it woks great, if not the average person will not care. 
uwbadgers wrote: Okay, here are follow-up questions:

If GA is adding this dimension to the offense, is he adding the risk of trying to do too many things, ie. jack of all trades, master of none?  In addition, how difficult is it to assemble a roster that is built to excel at both Power O and Spread O?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 10:45 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


The bottom line is that not all offenses are black and white. "You're either a power run or a spread." There's always hybrid versions of setups.

The first comp I can think of off-hand, look to RW in Seattle. At the pro level, the 'Hawks can pound it with Lynch, they can let RW use his legs, and still have the downfield threats and the passing game (couldn't get Harvin on the field, but tate/baldwin played fine).
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 10:55 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


Do most of you believe that "running the spread" is synonymous with being a passing team? That is simply false. The spread offense comes in many shapes and sizes and is driven by several philosophies. And there certainly are teams like Texas Tech or Baylor or Missouri or Wazoo that come out in four and five wide and just fling the ball all over the yard.

But I'd bet that a careful analysis would show most spread teams emphasize the run. Watch Northwestern run its spread offense and it will look nothing like the spread under M ike Leach. Urban Meyer's teams -- OSU, Florida, Utah -- all ran the spread and emphasized the run. Chip Kelly's Oregon offense is primarily a running offense, with the QB being one of the chief ball carriers.

All three of those programs emphasize the run, but they do it in different ways, from different formations and with different tempos. But to think the spread can't incorporate a power running game is just wrong.

The late Randy Walker was asked once about the similarity between his offense and the old single wing. Walker agreed to the comparison, and added, "if we were running the spinner series, it would be the single wing." The single wing was one of the most fearsome power running offenses in the history of the game.

This idea that because Wisconsin might trot out four wide receivers -- they've done it before -- and run a true spread with the QB as a ball-carrying option it somehow negates the program's reputation for power runninging is fallacious.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 10:55 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 



BleacherBadger wrote: The bottom line is that not all offenses are black and white. "You're either a power run or a spread." There's always hybrid versions of setups.

The first comp I can think of off-hand, look to RW in Seattle. At the pro level, the 'Hawks can pound it with Lynch, they can let RW use his legs, and still have the downfield threats and the passing game (couldn't get Harvin on the field, but tate/baldwin played fine).
Heck there were times when Chryst went "spread". We haven't had enough WRs lately to do it with any regularity. It was definitely an issue last year and one with as many major question marks this.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 10:56 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


All BB's recruits that eventually were selected in the first round of the NFL draft were in-state linemen.  I am confident GA can do equally as well at landing those types.  The OL and RB recruits seem pretty comparable.
theunknownfan81 wrote: You need an identity and then you recruit to it. That is what BB did so well for the running game. Coach Anderson is a spread guy and will continue to recruit to that focus. 

With 85 schollies you can't recruit for both systems and expect both to run at optimal level. He wants 16 scholly guys on the OL during the average season, so people can break the rest down and get a feel for it. 

I have no problem with him going to more spread since that is who he is and was hired knowing that. It just goes against what made Wisconsin Wisconsin. If it woks great, if not the average person will not care. 
uwbadgers wrote: Okay, here are follow-up questions:

If GA is adding this dimension to the offense, is he adding the risk of trying to do too many things, ie. jack of all trades, master of none?  In addition, how difficult is it to assemble a roster that is built to excel at both Power O and Spread O?

Last edited 6/17/2014 10:57 AM by NewerBreed

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 11:11 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 





---------------------------------------------
--- BleacherBadger wrote:

2nd half vs Michigan in 2010
Ph3431 wrote: Did the Badgers ever run the ball 30 straight times under BA or BB?

Seems like another lie by unknownfan81/allaboutrecruiting/shadowsofCR/menomo nie1/madisonbadger.


---------------------------------------------
Yeah, Bielema was pissed off at the accusations of running up the score against Indiana the week before because of the ONE broken play pass. So he decided to make a point by running the ball on every play in the second half against Michigan.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 11:11 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 



SoCalBadger wrote: Do most of you believe that "running the spread" is synonymous with being a passing team? That is simply false. The spread offense comes in many shapes and sizes and is driven by several philosophies. And there certainly are teams like Texas Tech or Baylor or Missouri or Wazoo that come out in four and five wide and just fling the ball all over the yard.

But I'd bet that a careful analysis would show most spread teams emphasize the run. Watch Northwestern run its spread offense and it will look nothing like the spread under M ike Leach. Urban Meyer's teams -- OSU, Florida, Utah -- all ran the spread and emphasized the run. Chip Kelly's Oregon offense is primarily a running offense, with the QB being one of the chief ball carriers.

All three of those programs emphasize the run, but they do it in different ways, from different formations and with different tempos. But to think the spread can't incorporate a power running game is just wrong.

The late Randy Walker was asked once about the similarity between his offense and the old single wing. Walker agreed to the comparison, and added, "if we were running the spinner series, it would be the single wing." The single wing was one of the most fearsome power running offenses in the history of the game.

This idea that because Wisconsin might trot out four wide receivers -- they've done it before -- and run a true spread with the QB as a ball-carrying option it somehow negates the program's reputation for power runninging is fallacious.
I posted sometime earlier that what I think I am seeing is Wisconsin evolving into an Urban Meyer "type" offense. Personally, I'm not real crazy about it. Only because Wisconsin has had a good deal of success neutralizing it. I'm hoping that it will take a slightly different form utilizing what currently works with the "power spread" of Meyer's.

Last edited 6/17/2014 11:16 AM by UnknownBadger

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 11:23 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 



brainysmurf wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- BleacherBadger wrote:

2nd half vs Michigan in 2010
Ph3431 wrote: Did the Badgers ever run the ball 30 straight times under BA or BB?

Seems like another lie by unknownfan81/allaboutrecruiting/shadowsofCR/menomo nie1/madisonbadger.
---------------------------------------------
Yeah, Bielema was pissed off at the accusations of running up the score against Indiana the week before because of the ONE broken play pass. So he decided to make a point by running the ball on every play in the second half against Michigan.
And let's not forget, it was RichRod's Michigan. If a boxer refuses to lower his hands from in front of his face, you're going to pound away at the body. 

Coming off a turnover in the pass game, I'd be willing to bet the exact words were very close to: "Run the damn ball until they show they can stop it."

And they never did. biggrin

I'm sitting here smiling as I type this - probably about as much pleasure as I've ever gotten from a football game came while watching the second half of that game.

Engage the good posters, ignore the bad, report as inappropriate the problems. Message board rules. Thanks.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 11:25 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


Correct me if I'm wrong (and I admit, I may be wrong on this) but 2 major elements of a spread formation  (in general) include:
1) personnel: less double TE, I-formation looks/use of a fullback, and more 4 WR looks, and 2) the type of O-linemen - more nimble, less road grader types.

For point #2, I'm thinking more of the build of Oregon/Texas Tech O-linemen and how they are smaller and have extra spacing between each other.  I understand you can run the ball effectively out of a spread, I just wonder if you can build a team to excel at all those personnel groupings.  As good at they are at running the ball, I don't consider Northwestern or Oregon a power running offense.
SoCalBadger wrote: Do most of you believe that "running the spread" is synonymous with being a passing team? That is simply false. The spread offense comes in many shapes and sizes and is driven by several philosophies. And there certainly are teams like Texas Tech or Baylor or Missouri or Wazoo that come out in four and five wide and just fling the ball all over the yard.

But I'd bet that a careful analysis would show most spread teams emphasize the run. Watch Northwestern run its spread offense and it will look nothing like the spread under M ike Leach. Urban Meyer's teams -- OSU, Florida, Utah -- all ran the spread and emphasized the run. Chip Kelly's Oregon offense is primarily a running offense, with the QB being one of the chief ball carriers.

All three of those programs emphasize the run, but they do it in different ways, from different formations and with different tempos. But to think the spread can't incorporate a power running game is just wrong.

The late Randy Walker was asked once about the similarity between his offense and the old single wing. Walker agreed to the comparison, and added, "if we were running the spinner series, it would be the single wing." The single wing was one of the most fearsome power running offenses in the history of the game.

This idea that because Wisconsin might trot out four wide receivers -- they've done it before -- and run a true spread with the QB as a ball-carrying option it somehow negates the program's reputation for power runninging is fallacious.
 

Last edited 6/17/2014 11:30 AM by uwbadgers

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 11:25 AM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 



MantyWrestler wrote: I think we will actually see both more spread and still pound the football.

The one problem UW has had in the past is teams diving at the feet of the offensive line to clog up the running game and packing 8-9 guys in the box to stop the run. Going 3-4 wide forces the defense to put more d-back on the field and widen the defense to go cover our wide-outs, thus opening up the running lanes.

Also gives a mobile QB room to run and if he can throw the ball and our WR's can run it keeps the DB's further from the line of scrimmage.
Unless Stave really really shows improvement (if he is the pick at qb) it is a moot point to have as many receivers as 4 on the field for any play this year.  To date he has locked on to the primary receiver on pass plays (whether open or not) and has not shown the ability read his progressions and pass to an open receiver or to be able to run the ball himself.  He is not a spread qb and I also agree with others that because they will run some spread formations the Badgers will for the foreseeable future be a power running team and I am happy for that.  We just need an adequate passing game to break down the 8-9 and even sometimes 10 defenders in the box.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 12:14 PM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


Agree. Yet that didn't keep ignored81 from trying to twist it into a negative.
jbooshey wrote:
OlBadger wrote:

"Before fans get the wrong impression, the Badgers are not about to abandon  their power running game. Lee compared it to the high school offense he is in  currently at Chaminade College Prep in West Hills, California. Lee said that offense is about 50-50 run-pass, including a power running  component. 'We run spread and we run the ball,” Lee said. “It’s kind of like what  Wisconsin is trying to do now — run spread (passing) and then run the ball. We  do have a power running game and really good running backs.'”

Too much talk about passing being in a spread formation...they are not necessarily linked like the quote makes it sound like.  We will run out of spread formations and we'll pass out of pro sets.

Go Badgers!  On Wisconsin!

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 12:18 PM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


Especially since it was against Michigan!
OlBadger wrote:

"2nd half vs Michigan in 2010"

Good catch. In the second half, after UM scored on their opening drive, UW took over with a 24-7 lead. On third and four, Tolzien hit Isaac Anderson for five yards and an apparent first down, but Anderson fumbled, and UM took over on the UW 38. Two plays later, it was 24-14. The Badgers didn't pass again, running the ball 31 straight times. Their final five drives:

 

8 rushes, TD

7 rushes, TD

5 rushes, FG

9 rushes, TD

2 kneel downs, end of game.

 

Four scores, 24 points, and not a single pass. Woody Hayes would have loved it!

 

Go Badgers!  On Wisconsin!

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 12:46 PM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


It's actually pretty simple unknownfan81/allaboutrecruiting/shadowsofCR/madiso nbadger/menomonie1:

I don't consider a QB kneel down 'pounding the rock.'

---------------------------------------------
--- OlBadger wrote:

"2nd half vs Michigan in 2010"

Good catch. In the second half, after UM scored on their opening drive, UW took over with a 24-7 lead. On third and four, Tolzien hit Isaac Anderson for five yards and an apparent first down, but Anderson fumbled, and UM took over on the UW 38. Two plays later, it was 24-14. The Badgers didn't pass again, running the ball 31 straight times. Their final five drives:

 

8 rushes, TD

7 rushes, TD

5 rushes, FG

9 rushes, TD

2 kneel downs, end of game.

 

Four scores, 24 points, and not a single pass. Woody Hayes would have loved it!

 



---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 12:48 PM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


Ignore81....what a great call! Hahahaha.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 1:38 PM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 



BadRick wrote:
MantyWrestler wrote: I think we will actually see both more spread and still pound the football.

The one problem UW has had in the past is teams diving at the feet of the offensive line to clog up the running game and packing 8-9 guys in the box to stop the run. Going 3-4 wide forces the defense to put more d-back on the field and widen the defense to go cover our wide-outs, thus opening up the running lanes.

Also gives a mobile QB room to run and if he can throw the ball and our WR's can run it keeps the DB's further from the line of scrimmage.
Unless Stave really really shows improvement (if he is the pick at qb) it is a moot point to have as many receivers as 4 on the field for any play this year.  To date he has locked on to the primary receiver on pass plays (whether open or not) and has not shown the ability read his progressions and pass to an open receiver or to be able to run the ball himself.  He is not a spread qb and I also agree with others that because they will run some spread formations the Badgers will for the foreseeable future be a power running team and I am happy for that.  We just need an adequate passing game to break down the 8-9 and even sometimes 10 defenders in the box.
They will be integrating more spread stuff even with Stave. Like I said in my first post in this thread, the days of running the ball 30 straight times will be history and will never bee seen again.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 1:42 PM

Re: Spread offense or nothing to see here? 


Depending on the level of spread stuff he wants to do here at WI, he will need to recruit and develop the key parts of those schemes at a similar level that BB did with his teams in order to be successful. We will see if he can get it done. 
NewerBreed wrote: All BB's recruits that eventually were selected in the first round of the NFL draft were in-state linemen.  I am confident GA can do equally as well at landing those types.  The OL and RB recruits seem pretty comparable.
theunknownfan81 wrote: You need an identity and then you recruit to it. That is what BB did so well for the running game. Coach Anderson is a spread guy and will continue to recruit to that focus. 

With 85 schollies you can't recruit for both systems and expect both to run at optimal level. He wants 16 scholly guys on the OL during the average season, so people can break the rest down and get a feel for it. 

I have no problem with him going to more spread since that is who he is and was hired knowing that. It just goes against what made Wisconsin Wisconsin. If it woks great, if not the average person will not care. 
uwbadgers wrote: Okay, here are follow-up questions:

If GA is adding this dimension to the offense, is he adding the risk of trying to do too many things, ie. jack of all trades, master of none?  In addition, how difficult is it to assemble a roster that is built to excel at both Power O and Spread O?
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >